AoS Costs of battalions

I've Always thought that the costs for battalions is a bit high for two reasons.

1. A lot of our stuff doesn't function well on their own; the synergy of the battalion is almost mandatory. For example, saurus guards are too squishy outside of their battalion for their intended role.
2. A battalion already forces you to use certain units; this is already a "cost" and it can be quite steep as in the heavenswatch starhost where a whopping 360-560 points and 3 leader slotsare needed just to fill the battalion-requirements. On top of that the leaders all fullfill the same role, they're not even a neat triumvirate consisting of say a support a commander & a melee powerhouse.'And that's just the required stuff for the leaders.
3. Our battalions aren't godlike by any means; they rely on key-units, which can be assasinated to significantly lower, or in some cases completly remove, the benefit the starhost gives. And only starhost that can problematic to deal with is an eternal one in small point games if the opponent has no mortal wounds. And that's more due to the nature of low point games than anything else.

What are your thoughts on this? Are we just unique in so far that we're the only army where a lot of our stuff just doesn't function all that well outside of their battalion? Are our battalions maybe less open, whereas other armies have more freedom in their battalions to pick and choose units (or just far less units to pick and choose from so a given battalion includes half their army)? Do the battalions of others simply provide far greater benefits to their troops? I'm really curious, cuz with battalions costing the equivalent of 1-2 units easily on top of the requirements of fielding specific stuff and stuff frequently not being all that amazing outside the battalion it just seems like we have very steep costs.

As already pointed in the "guide to Seraphon Battalion" thread, the battalions give 2 advantages:
1) you can field all the units of the battalion at once, so if you have a battalion with 7 units, you can place them with a single drop, thus gaining the edge when it comes to "who chooses the first turn"
2) a battalion lets you pick an additional artefact.

The GHB 2017 saw a wide increase of the cost of the battalions, and it reflects (IMO) those general advantages.
So, the differences in ponts from the various battalions should reflects the different goodness of each battalion (a thing that is not always true)

When battalions were cheap, there were little reasons to not take them, but now you must think twice about it.

Heavenswatch is one of our best Starhosts, and costs 200 pts. An EotG is 220. I am basically losing a strong behemoth to field that starhost.
and while it's true that there are battalions that cost less than 100, we also have some real crazyness... many SCE battalions are placed within 240-260 pts!

Those two advantages have nothing to do with the battalion in question though. And taxing them feels more like they're trying to balance out unintended advantages of battalions with a bandaid-rule, much like the rule of one for magic and a bunch of oher rules introduced in the first GHB. If extra artifacts are too powerfull attach a cost to those specificly, and the way to determine who goes first is flawed in principle as it encourages some weird sheninigans like I mentioned before.

On top of that, as I've pointed out. The sheer point-cost isn't the only cost associated. At least not for most our starhosts. The requirements for what to field is quite specific and regularly has at least some drawbacks such as the heavenswatch requiring 3 support heroes, the fact that a shadowstrike has nothing that can actually take a punch, and our general reliance on a key-unit to maintain the actual buff. And lastly some of our stuff just flat out doesn't work without their battalion (e.g. saurus guard..) This makes our battalions relativly expensive and restrictive while also being fairly mandatory to get going.

Now if all our stuff functioned well without the battalion and it'd just be a nice bonus and íf there was significant flexibility, such as how the heavenswatch fields 3-6 units and not just 6 units for it's rank and file, then I'd agree with the relative high cost. But in between all of it it feels very weird, at least for the seraphon.

Looking at the SCE stuff they seem to suffer this issue much less though, less battalions that rely on a key unit and their units are generally already good enough at everything. Plus if your unit is good at everything anyway it doesn't matter that much when your forced to take specific stuff.

Canas said:

Those two advantages have nothing to do with the battalion in question though. And taxing them feels more like they're trying to balance out unintended advantages of battalions with a bandaid-rule, much like the rule of one for magic and a bunch of oher rules introduced in the first GHB. If extra artifacts are too powerfull attach a cost to those specificly, and the way to determine who goes first is flawed in principle as it encourages some weird sheninigans like I mentioned before.

Click to expand...

Absolutely yes, it is a bandaid-rule (and for this reasons works somewhat poorly). Different extra costs for artefacts would have been better..
Anyway, those 2 advantages are valid for all armies, so it should have been something as "battalions cost +40 pts because of those advantages, let's increase them all by this amount"

Yeah. I see how it fixed some stuff for other armies (Bonesplitterz, SCE and Sylvaneth bataillons were ridiculously cheap for example) but I still see it as a band-aid, and one that overcompensated quite a bit to boot.

Killer Angel said:

Absolutely yes, it is a bandaid-rule (and for this reasons works somewhat poorly). Different extra costs for artefacts would have been better..
Anyway, those 2 advantages are valid for all armies, so it should have been something as "battalions cost +40 pts because of those advantages, let's increase them all by this amount"

Click to expand...

Meh, that at least explains the general cost increase... though it remains a bad fix..

Aginor said:

Yeah. I see how it fixed some stuff for other armies (Bonesplitterz, SCE and Sylvaneth bataillons were ridiculously cheap for example) but I still see it as a band-aid, and one that overcompensated quite a bit to boot.

Click to expand...

At least then the feeling I have is accurate

Meh, we really need a new battletom... I keep running into bandaid fixes that end up screwing us over quite a lot due to our battletome being written way before they came out. Rule of one for magic screws with how many wizards we have, limit on behemoths screws with our cool stuff, point costs for battalions screws with our reliance on synergies and weak-ish baseline units, reinforcement points costs turned summoning into a glorified reinforcement mechanic, our general lack of mortal wounds and mechanics for dealing with mortal wounds... We're not outright unuseable or even terrible (and to be honest that's an achievement on GW's part), but at times it feels like the seraphon were designed for an entirely different game.

Canas said:

Meh, that at least explains the general cost increase... though it remains a bad fix..



At least then the feeling I have is accurate

Meh, we really need a new battletom... I keep running into bandaid fixes that end up screwing us over quite a lot due to our battletome being written way before they came out. Rule of one for magic screws with how many wizards we have, limit on behemoths screws with our cool stuff, point costs for battalions screws with our reliance on synergies and weak-ish baseline units, reinforcement points costs turned summoning into a glorified reinforcement mechanic, our general lack of mortal wounds and mechanics for dealing with mortal wounds... We're not outright unuseable or even terrible (and to be honest that's an achievement on GW's part), but at times it feels like the seraphon were designed for an entirely different game.

Click to expand...

We need new characters, more diverse wizards etc, like you have previously mentioned they are all the same and not diverse enough.

Crowsfoot said:

We need new characters, more diverse wizards etc, like you have previously mentioned they are all the same and not diverse enough.

Click to expand...

Meh so far we need:

• New and more varied characters, especially skinks (where is the skink chief, the stalker, etc)
• Skink heroes to actually be capable commanders (why do literally none of them have command abilities...)
• Far more varied magic
  • Preferably in combination with a better magic system cuz the rule of 1 is stupid.
• Less reliance on synergy/battalions (e.g. better base-stats) or have synergy be far easier to pull of (e.g. lower/nonexistant costs, less reliance on the one key-unit)
• The ability to field more big dinosaurs (they're our cool stuff.. having your cool stuff be limited to 2-3 models is lame... if nothing else give us "young" and "ancient" stegadons/bastilidons/carnosaurs. The young ones are similar in stat-line to say those dracoth riders and don't count as behemoths whereas the "ancient" ones are what we have now. Tada, problem solved)
• Ways to deal with mortal wounds
• Ways to cause mortal wounds/to circumvent heavy defenses
• Saurus guards to not be as horrificly squishy since they're our "elite" option
• Saurus warriors to be usefull outside of a 40 man horde
• Skinks to be a capable of dealing damage outside of a 40 man horde. 10 skinks don't need to be the most dangerous force in the world, but more than 1 forced save/turn would be cool.... But at least 10 skinks can still do some harrasement unlike warriors.

The list is starting to get rather long

Very good post, I agree with almost everything.

I disagree with these though:
- reliance on synergies: I want all armies to be more synergy based like we are. I love that about ours. Multiple synergies to make a variety of units and tactics viable.
Extreme example is Ironjawz. Close to no synergies or variability there. That's bad.

- magic rule of 1. I can absolutely live with the RoO, if we get enough spells. I play a bit of Sylvaneth (and have read the Bonesplitterz Battletome which also has spell lore) and IMO the RoO is no issue if every wizard can just pick one additional spell. Maybe let a Slann choose two additional spells.

- mortal wounds: I want that to be dealt with globally, not join the club of lamer armies just to be more competitive. Mortal wounds are not balanced. They should be either very rare or EVERY army should have an easy way to mitigate those.

Aginor said:

Very good post, I agree with almost everything.

I disagree with these though:
- reliance on synergies: I want all armies to be more synergy based like we are. I love that about ours. Multiple synergies to make a variety of units and tactics viable.
Extreme example is Ironjawz. Close to no synergies or variability there. That's bad.

Click to expand...

I meant that our armies shouldn't fall apart the moment a key-unit is lost and that every unit should at least function on their own without backup. The fact that a skink starpriest, starseer and priest for example won't be able to do anything of significance on their own is infuriating. Even if they're supporting heroes it'd be nice if they could at least win some fights aginst an "equal" opponent. Compare it with say a lord-castellant who's main purpose is also supporting,that guy at least has a decent save and attack and could potentially use his supporting skills on himself. He's not going to wreck armies on his own, but he's not completly lost if he gets caught on his own...

I agree that making neat combo's of stuff is far more interesting than just dumping a 100 heavy infantry models on your enemy every single time .

Aginor said:

- magic rule of 1. I can absolutely live with the RoO, if we get enough spells. I play a bit of Sylvaneth (and have read the Bonesplitterz Battletome which also has spell lore) and IMO the RoO is no issue if every wizard can just pick one additional spell. Maybe let a Slann choose two additional spells.

Click to expand...

Those spell lores do a lot to fix it, but I don't like how the rule of 1 screws with certain special spells like Kroak's celestial deliverance. I get that the spell might be overpowered in its current form, but then fix the spell. Taking away what made it truly unique and powerfull isn't a fix. Similarly, it annoys me to no end that I can't put mystic shield on multiple targets, or that only 1 of my wizards can actually attack with arcane bolt. I want to be able to buff multiple units so that my opponent doesn't just focus a different target, I want all my wizards to be able to use their attack when needed. And it is utterly mindboggling that even just attempting a spell (and failing) already counts for your 1 cast. Now you could simply give us a 100 spells half of which do the same and call it a day. Being able to put mystic shield on target 1 and magical barrier on target 2 would "solve" my issue. But it'd be a bit silly . Hence I don't like the rule of 1.

Aginor said:

- mortal wounds: I want that to be dealt with globally, not join the club of lamer armies just to be more competitive. Mortal wounds are not balanced. They should be either very rare or EVERY army should have an easy way to mitigate those.

Click to expand...

Personally I think they should've just gone with having physical and magical damage alongside a physical and magical save. Mortal wounds wouldn't be necesary in that case (at most as a rare special mechanic on the truly powerfull and scary stuff) and it'd open up some clever tactics with respect to what unit you send to deal with what enemy. Right now mortal wounds work against virtually everyone and having a good save works against virtually everyone. There's no real reason to use them on specific units other than "I just really want that specific unit dead".... Also, not having any protection is kinda silly... especially when what's getting attacked is anything other than fodder.

Ah I understand. Fully agree then.
Especially the "attempt a spell" thing. That's beyond silly.

Canas said:

Similarly, it annoys me to no end that I can't put mystic shield on multiple targets, or that only 1 of my wizards can actually attack with arcane bolt. I want to be able to buff multiple units so that my opponent doesn't just focus a different target, I want all my wizards to be able to use their attack when needed. And it is utterly mindboggling that even just attempting a spell (and failing) already counts for your 1 cast. Now you could simply give us a 100 spells half of which do the same and call it a day. Being able to put mystic shield on target 1 and magical barrier on target 2 would "solve" my issue. But it'd be a bit silly . Hence I don't like the rule of 1.

Click to expand...

This I totally agree with why can all wizards cast Mystic shield, arcane bolt but only one can use it, just don't make sense.

I sort of get that stacking mystic shield will make some units almost immortal and targeting a hero with 2/3 arcane bolts is a bit OP but that's your choice to cast the spells where you want.

Canas said:

Personally I think they should've just gone with having physical and magical damage alongside a physical and magical save. Mortal wounds wouldn't be necesary in that case (at most as a rare special mechanic on the truly powerfull and scary stuff) and it'd open up some clever tactics with respect to what unit you send to deal with what enemy. Right now mortal wounds work against virtually everyone and having a good save works against virtually everyone. There's no real reason to use them on specific units other than "I just really want that specific unit dead".... Also, not having any protection is kinda silly... especially when what's getting attacked is anything other than fodder.

Click to expand...

+6 save for all basic units, +5/6 for Heros monsters etc

Crowsfoot said:

This I totally agree with why can all wizards cast Mystic shield, arcane bolt but only one can use it, just don't make sense.

I sort of get that stacking mystic shield will make some units almost immortal and targeting a hero with 2/3 arcane bolts is a bit OP but that's your choice to cast the spells where you want.

Click to expand...

Stacking shields can just be prevented with "a unit can only be affected by 1 copy of a spell/abilityat the same time unless explicitly stated otherwise". But there's really no reason to forbid someone from casting a shield on target one and a shield on target two.

As for nuking a hero into oblivion with arcane bolts. The issue here is not so much the 3 arcane bolts as the fact that they're mortal wounds and mortal wounds quickly get very overwhelming by their very nature. Hence why I'd rather have had magical and physical damage with 2 seperate saves. Spamming attacks wouldn't be as overwhelming in that case, especially if you start including anti-magic units.

Crowsfoot said:

+6 save for all basic units, +5/6 for Heros monsters etc

Click to expand...

That'd be too generic. It might make mortal wounds less overwhelming but the issue remains that mortal wounds are still more or less equally good against everything. Dividing it into 2 flavors of damage with 2 seperate saves allows for specialisation and actual tactical options. But yea, it's a start

Another fun fact by me:
The more I read about the 40K rules the more I understand why in some regards AoS rules seem to be over-simplified. Especially the armor piercing stuff and the melee hit vs. shooting hit sounds like a reasonable idea.

As for the mortal wounds: I would vote for a "magic save" of some sort that affects mortal wounds, but I also think they shouldn't treat all of them equally. For me an Arcane Bolt or a SCE prayer is a different type of damage than the mortal wound a Salamander causes with his burning, or the 6+ mortal wound caused by a Bloodletter's sword...

@Crowsfoot 's suggestions would reduce the problem's impact I guess, but I am not sure it fixes the underlying problem.

Also interesting about the magic discussion: Unbinds.
Why is it impossible for more than one wizard to make an unbind attempt? Doesn't sound logical to me either.

Aginor said:

Another fun fact by me:
The more I read about the 40K rules the more I understand why in some regards AoS rules seem to be over-simplified. Especially the armor piercing stuff and the melee hit vs. shooting hit sounds like a reasonable idea.

As for the mortal wounds: I would vote for a "magic save" of some sort that affects mortal wounds, but I also think they shouldn't treat all of them equally. For me an Arcane Bolt or a SCE prayer is a different type of damage than the mortal wound a Salamander causes with his burning, or the 6+ mortal wound caused by a Bloodletter's sword...

@Crowsfoot 's suggestions would reduce the problem's impact I guess, but I am not sure it fixes the underlying problem.

Click to expand...

Although they should technicly be "different" that might make it too complex. Just magical vs physical is good enough I think. Also, magical vs physical doesn't entirely remove mortal wounds from the equation. They can have their place as long as they're extremely limited and/or unreliable or difficult to pull of. E.g. stuff like a retributor dealing mortal wounds on a 6 isn't all that overwhelming There's stuff that can influence that 6. Not to mention having the requirement of it being a 6 on a melee roll means I can send in fodder to eat the charge, or just shoot em before they get close.

So you'd end with 3 categories.

• Physical: the most common, also the most common to have good defense against.
  
• Magical: uncommon, defense to it is also uncommon.
  
• Mortal: limited, rare, unreliable & difficult to pull off. Defense against it is also rare.

That should be fine.

Aginor said:

Also interesting about the magic discussion: Unbinds.
Why is it impossible for more than one wizard to make an unbind attempt? Doesn't sound logical to me either.

Click to expand...

This would simply be balance I'd gues. If multiple wizards can do it you'l end up with situations where a 1 wizard is just going to be useless once he's surrounded. Admittadly, having multiple wizards (or more powerfull ones like say a slann) work together and gain a bonus to unbinding would be sensible.

Canas said:

Meh, that at least explains the general cost increase... though it remains a bad fix..



At least then the feeling I have is accurate

Meh, we really need a new battletom... I keep running into bandaid fixes that end up screwing us over quite a lot due to our battletome being written way before they came out. Rule of one for magic screws with how many wizards we have, limit on behemoths screws with our cool stuff, point costs for battalions screws with our reliance on synergies and weak-ish baseline units, reinforcement points costs turned summoning into a glorified reinforcement mechanic, our general lack of mortal wounds and mechanics for dealing with mortal wounds... We're not outright unuseable or even terrible (and to be honest that's an achievement on GW's part), but at times it feels like the seraphon were designed for an entirely different game.

Click to expand...

This last sentence precisely captures the pain I have with my Seraphon army it's legit as if they were made for a totally different game, but can be used with experience and good list building all the same haha. It's actually this reason I started a second "fun" army of SCE so I can have some chilled games with units that are just really well thought out and work nicely for the games sake haha

Disclaimer: Space Lizards are still my fav

I've seriously considered starting stormcast for that very reason. I love my lizards and will continue to build and use them but I also like the paladin look of stormcast and really like the idea of my units being able to hold their own without a half dozen buffs.